UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES MERCED RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ CHAIR, ACADEMIC SENATE JOSE WUDKA RIVERSIDE DIVISION PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY UNIVERSITY OFFICE BUILDING, RM 225 RIVERSIDE, CA 92521-0217 TEL: (951) 827-6154 E-MAIL: JOSE.WUDKA@UCR.EDU April 25, 2014 William Jacob, Chair, Academic Council 1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor Oakland, CA 94607-5200 RE: Systemwide Review of Proposal to Revise Senate Bylaw 55 Dear Bill, During its April 14 meeting the Executive Council discussed the two proposed modifications to Bylaw 55. By a majority (11 in favor, 5 against and 2 abstentions) Council supported version 2 of the proposal. This support was driven by a spirit of fairness, equality and democracy. Prior to the vote there was extensive discussion, and though it was recognized that non-senate faculty (NSF) should receive a measure of representation in personnel actions, there were many aspects of the proposal that will need to be clarified in its final version. I will provide a summary of these points below. The main concern was the possibility that adopting this proposal will lead to different standards for the merit and promotion of faculty among departments within the campus, and for equivalent departments between sister campus, and that this will have a negative impact not only on the departments themselves, but on the system as a whole. The point here is that some NSF may not have expertise in all aspects of the activities expected of Senate faculty; in fact, some Council members suggested the scope of NSF votes be restricted accordingly. Balancing these concerns, several members observed that their departments have for a long time included votes from NSF members (included as 'advisory' in the department's letter) and this has led to no negative effects. There was also discussion on the escape clause that would allow Senate faculty to terminate NSF voting rights; several members worried that, in practice, pressure from within a department would make such an action, if not impossible, very difficult. Linked to this was the worry that this proposal will grow into allowing NSF voting rights in curricular matters. Council members also suggested that the proposal be amended by Including the specific list of NSF titles covered Changing the measure of NSF participation from 'effort ' to a general measure ('effort' does not apply to all categories covered by the proposal)
Allowing divisions to include restrictions on e-mail voting (or including such restrictions in the bylaw itself) : in some disciplines NSF may have minimal contact with the campus so that unrestricted e-mail voting can easily degenerate into a pro-forma process Stating whether divisions will be allowed to impose specific restrictions on the scope of NSF votes Let me conclude that there was no concern over NSF reviewing and voting on NSF personnel actions We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Sincerely yours, Jose Wudka Professor of Physics & Astronomy and Chair of the Riverside Division CC: Martha Kendall Winnacker, Executive Director of the Academic Senate Cynthia Palmer, Director of UCR Academic Senate office 2
COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PERSONNEL March 18, 2014 From: Jose Wudka, Chair Riverside Division of the Academic Senate George Haggerty, Chair Committee on Academic Personnel Re: Systemwide Review of Revised Proposal to Amend Senate Bylaw 55 At its meeting on March 10, 2014, CAP discussed the proposed revised amendment to Senate Bylaw 55 and supports the enactment of version 2.
COMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY & EQUAL OPPORTUNITY April 4, 2014 From: Jose Wudka, Chair Riverside Division of the Academic Senate Zhenbiao Yang, Chair Committee on Diversity & Equal Opportunity Re: Systemwide Review of Revised Proposal to Amend Senate Bylaw 55 At its meeting on March 31, 2014, the Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity discussed the proposed revised amendment to Senate Bylaw 55. While it supports the enactment of version 2, the committee suggests that further clarification be provided regarding which classes of career qualify as (i.e. >50% effort) non-academic Senate members.
Committee on Faculty Welfare March 14, 2014 From: Jose Wudka Chair, Riverside Division Academic Senate Georgia Warnke Chair, Committee on Faculty Welfare Re: Systemwide Review of Revised Proposal to Amend Senate Bylaw 55 At its meeting on March 11, 2014, the Committee on Faculty Welfare discussed both proposed revised amendments to Senate Bylaw 55. While it supports Version 2, it recommends further clarification on which titles on campus qualify as career (i.e. >50% effort) non-academic Senate members. The Faculty Welfare committee also thinks Division members should know how many qualifying members are at UCR before voting for a change.
Committee on Privilege and Tenure March 18, 2014 From: Jose Wudka Chair, Riverside Division Academic Senate Helen Henry Chair, Committee on Privilege and Tenure Re: Revised Proposal to Change Senate Bylaw 55 The Committee on Privilege and Tenure reviewed the revised version of the proposed amendment to Bylaw 55 put forward by the San Diego Division. Overall our view has not changed the since we discussed in in the fall, i.e. that the proposal should have full formal consideration. Those who responded were unanimous in the view that the policy, if approved, should apply to all disciplines and not be limited to the Health Sciences.
April 8, 2014 Jose Wudka, Chair Riverside Division From: Michael Allen, Chair Committee on Research RE: Systemwide Review of Revised Proposal to Amend Senate Bylaw 55 The Committee on Research reviewed and discussed the revised proposal to amend Senate bylaw 55. The committee strongly opposes option one of the new proposal as it applies only to Health Science faculty, and thus excludes, for example, Cooperative Extension Specialists. The committee supports formal systemwide review of option two of the new proposal.
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND JURISDICTION April 4, 2014 From: Jose Wudka, Chair Riverside Division of the Academic Senate Ziv Ran, Chair Committee on Rules & Jurisdiction Re: Systemwide Review of Revised Proposal to Amend Senate Bylaw 55 R&J considered the revised proposal and finds that it fails to address the principal concern it had about the original proposal, to wit, that the proposed rule-change would diminish the Academic Senate by allowing non-senate faculty to vote on merits and promotions involving Senate members.
Office of the Dean Riverside, CA 92521 Tel 951.827.5190 Fax 951.827.3188 www.engr.ucr.edu April 7, 2014 TO: FR: Jose Wudka, Chair Riverside Division Akula Venkatram, Chair Executive Committee, Bourns College of Engineering RE: Systemwide Review of Revised Proposal to Amend Senate Bylaw 55 The BCOE Executive Committee had no objection to version 1 of the Amendment to Senate Bylaw 55 only because it applied exclusively to a department or school in the Health Sciences. The amendment is designed to address the disenfranchisement felt by a large and growing number of contingent faculty who support UC s teaching mission substantially, but lack the privileges and protections of Senate membership. The Exec. Committee observed that while teaching is an important component of the personnel file of a faculty member, other factors such as research productivity play an equally important role in the evaluation of faculty members being considered for appointments, merits, and promotions. A person whose primary responsibility is teaching is unlikely to be in position to evaluate these other factors in casting a vote in the personnel action of a faculty member. The justification offered by Health Sciences to extend voting privileges on personnel matters to non-senate faculty members has limited relevance to the BCOE. The committee is concerned that a positive vote on version 1 of the amendment might create the momentum for requesting similar voting privileges in other colleges. We do not support version 2 of the amendment for the reasons given the previous paragraph. Once voting privileges are granted, it will be difficult to withdraw them. Removal of these privileges, for some reason, after 12 months will lead to severe morale problems in addition to the feeling of disenfranchisement this amendment is supposed to address. Separating the votes of Senate and non-senate faculty members in reporting them creates a situation in which some members are considered to be more equal than the others, and defeats the objective of enfranchising non-senate faculty.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES MERCED RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES, ARTS, AND SOCIAL SCIENCES RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92521-0132 April 3, 2014 TO: Jose Wudka, Chair Academic Senate FROM: Erica Edwards, Chair CHASS Executive Committee RE: Systemwide Review of Revised Proposal to Amend Senate Bylaw 55 The CHASS Executive Committee reviewed the revised version of the proposed amendment to Bylaw 55 put forward by the San Diego Division and is satisfied with both versions of the document. The committee prefers, though, that the proposed amendment be applicable to the health sciences exclusively. Erica Edwards, Chair UCR CHASS Executive Committee
TO: Jose Wudka, Chair, Riverside Division FROM: Gillian Wilson, Chair, Executive Committee College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences DATE: March 25 th 2013 RE: Systemwide Review of Revised Proposal to Amend Senate Bylaw 55 The CNAS Executive Committee did not have a meeting scheduled before comments were due on the revised proposed amendments to Senate Bylaw 55, so comments were solicited by email. The following four sets of comments were received: 1) The proposed changes to the revision require each Department to make the decision by secret ballot and allow a review of the decision after one year. This provides adequate safeguards in cases where voting by non-senate members is problematic. I also like the requirement that the votes of the senate faculty must be recorded separately from the votes of the non-senate faculty, and both get reported to CAP. If the two groups do have different expectations and make different decisions, this will now be evident to the Department and to CAP. Exposing such conflicts paves the way to solving them. I see no reason to restrict this to the Health Sciences, so I prefer version 2. 2) Concerning the proposed changes to non-academic Senate Faculty in Health Sciences my concern is that it seems arbitrary that this is a special case for only health science faculty and the proposed change further highlights the inequity of non-senate status and excluding from voting rights cooperative extension faculty in the Agricultural Experiment Station. Nationally, I believe the lower status of cooperative extension faculty (relative to other faculty) is unique to California/UC. 3) The revised proposal to amend Bylaw 55 seems improved from the previous submission. Particularly have only Associate and above vote on the department preference and having both votes (on promotion and such) sent to CAP. 4) In regard to the Systemwide Revised Proposal to Amend Bylaw 55, I don t see much effect. You will probably hear some concerns about having non-academic senate members comment on academic senate members files, but this is already happening at
UCR. In my own department, our non-academic senate colleagues in Cooperative Extension cast advisory votes on all files (even those above their level). This has been going on since about 1985. The world has not yet come to an end as a result. Interestingly, the academic senate members cast votes that count (non-advisory) on all the Cooperative Extension faculty. Speaking for myself, becoming aware of what everyone else is doing has had a positive effect on establishing cooperative research projects, not to mention the esprit-de-corps in the department.
March 18, 2014 From: Jose Wudka, Chair, Riverside Division John S. Levin, Chair, Executive Committee, Graduate School of Education Subject: System-wide Review of Revised Proposal to Amend Senate Bylaw 55 The Graduate School of Education Executive Committee as well as all GSOE Senate faculty have had an opportunity to comment on the two versions of the amendment to Senate bylaw 55. Because of the time limit, GSOE executive did not partake in a face-to-face discussion. There was little discussion among GSOE faculty on these proposals. Three views were expressed. One view was insistent that only senate faculty should have voting rights in GSOE, while Health Sciences could be enabled to extend voting rights (as in Bylaw amendment 55 Proposal Version 1). The second view was that voting rights should be extended to specific groups of non-senate faculty throughout the university (as in Bylaw amendment 55 Proposal Version 2). The third view expressed the need for universality of voting rights across the UC and within all units. That would mean the revision of Bylaw 55 so that the identical voting rights apply to all (whether there are exclusions or not).
School of Medicine Division of Biomedical Sciences April 1, 2014 School of Medicine Riverside, CA 92521 Jose Wudka Chair, Riverside Division Tel (951) 827-5942 From: Ameae Walker Chair, SOM Executive Committee Re: Changes to bylaw 55, revised The SOM Executive Committee reviewed the revised version of the proposed changes to Bylaw 55 and this committee response was circulated for approval prior to submission. While there is general support for the principle behind the changes to bylaw 55, without further clarification there are some concerns about implementation of the revised proposal. Proposed is separate recording of senate and non-senate votes in the department transmittal to the committee on academic personnel (CAP). However, it is unclear what this actually means in effect. If reported separately, how will CAP view the votes? For example, if a department has more non-senate than senate faculty, could the non-senate vote outweigh the senate vote? Also, one assumes the Chair would be required to address any discrepancy between the two votes, just as any minority opinion must be addressed now. How Chairs and CAP deal with the votes needs to be clarified in the document.